Concurrency

Congestion issues are about concurrency - the number of people clogging up the pipes at any given time. The utility companies try to promote non-peak-time energy usage to combat the same problem. But it's hard to see that approach working with the Internet. I can save my laundry load for the late night, but I'm not going to hold off working online or watching Netfllix until off-peak hours. Caps are crude, but better than nothing as far as carriers are concerned.

Re: Concurrency

The problem with regular utilities is they have real scarcity.

The majority of "scarcity" on networks is self inflicted through bad network management and absolutely pitiful amounts of corporate greed. The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand.

When cable competes with Fiber they often somehow, magically are able to offer faster uncapped plans. Funny right?

Re: Concurrency

Congestion occurs when the isp tries to deep packet inspect every packet , slowing the network down so it can resell the (legally ? really ?) obtained data to advertisers to spam its own customers to maximize profits, not service while not improving the network hardware or software.

Therefore the net hogg does exist in the form of fat greedy major isp s

Re: Concurrency

Congestion occurs when the isp tries to deep packet inspect every packet , slowing the network down so it can resell the (legally ? really ?) obtained data to advertisers to spam its own customers to maximize profits, not service while not improving the network hardware or software.

Therefore the net hogg does exist in the form of fat greedy major isp s

... The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand.

I have no problem with that. The problem isn't necessarily corporate greed (that's more an ethics/scruples discussion). If I was an investor in said company, I would want more dividends rather than watching the company invest when it doesn't have to. (As a consumer this sucks but that's beside the point.)

As you inferred, the problem is competition. Either we regulate them or figure out a way to introduce multiple (dozens) of competitors. However, regulation may not work since that could lead to fixed prices and crappy service. What really doesn't work is incumbents throwing up road blocks to prevent competition so they make money in spite of anti-consumer practices.

I don't think that is true. Take electricity for example. There is plenty of generation capacity but they need to build new transmission lines to carry the electricity generated. In fact, in some places renewables such as wind and solar have to be shut down because the grid has no capacity to carry it.

Yet individual customers are limited in how much they can use from the grid.

Take this for example from a local electric utility's tariff:

quote:1.07 Curtailable Load Limitation: The curtailable load of all customers provided for under this Tariff shall not exceed 2.5% of the Company's annual peak load in the preceding calendar year.

The majority of "scarcity" on networks is self inflicted through bad network management and absolutely pitiful amounts of corporate greed. The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand.

When cable competes with Fiber they often somehow, magically are able to offer faster uncapped plans. Funny right?

I will agree that there could be improved network management, but as someone who has worked at an ISP, I can tell you there is scarcity when it comes to bandwidth. There is no unlimited supply just sitting out there.

As for Fiber, its a different infrastructure, and a different price point as well. Also you have to figure that Fiber isn't available for everyone.--My domain - Nightfall.net

Re: Concurrency

I will agree that there could be improved network management, but as someone who has worked at an ISP, I can tell you there is scarcity when it comes to bandwidth. There is no unlimited supply just sitting out there.

you should also know then that preventing someone from downloading at 3 AM does nothing to help with congestion that happens primarily from 5 PM -11 PM.

Re: Concurrency

I will agree that there could be improved network management, but as someone who has worked at an ISP, I can tell you there is scarcity when it comes to bandwidth. There is no unlimited supply just sitting out there.

you should also know then that preventing someone from downloading at 3 AM does nothing to help with congestion that happens primarily from 5 PM -11 PM.

Absolutely, but what does that have to do with the statement I just made? Especially when I point out network management as a key problem. --My domain - Nightfall.net

Re: Concurrency

said by Nightfall As for Fiber, its a different infrastructure, and a different price point as well. Also you have to figure that Fiber isn't available for everyone.

I was referring to the Cable plans. COX cable was magically able to provide uncapped cable in LUS fiber areas overnight.

Your premise that there is some technical need for caps is erroneous and laughable at best, and I assume your willing to quote a node with 400+ users on it as proof.

Yet this is just an example of overly lazy and greedy management.

My premise is that bandwidth is limited. My premise is also that network management and design is a problem. Cable and DSL providers should be taking some of the profits and redesigning the networks for better use of that bandwidth. They shouldn't have nodes with no usage while nodes that have 400+ users on them suffer. There are better ways to do things.

However, thank you for putting words in my mouth and saying that I said that there is a technical need for caps. I appreciate you doing that and saying its "erroneous and laughable at best."

Re: Concurrency

Stating you work for an ISP and state that bandwidth is scarce is tantamount to saying there is a technical need for caps.

Only you hope that by implying it nobody will call that obvious BS for what it is, and with the added bonus of calling people trolls and playing some type of victim of misrepresentation.

You obviously have a problem reading. I was a contractor for an ISP. The key word is "WAS". That was well over 10 years ago. In that time, I understood the infrastructure of an ISP and what needed to be done to improve things. Nice attempt though, an apology would have sufficed, but I didn't expect much knowing your reputation.--My domain - Nightfall.net

Re: Concurrency

I guess you meant bandwidth is scarce in the same sense air is scarce right?

Nobody owes you an apology. You made an unsubstantiated point that was utter BS and I will call you out on it everytime.

I would take the time to educate you a bit more on ISPs, network optimization, and bandwidth, but it would be a waste of my time. Mainly because you cannot read my posts correctly. Please contact me over PM when you are ready to discuss it in more detail, or here in the thread. Preferably when you actually take the time to read.--My domain - Nightfall.net

Re: Concurrency

Your more than welcome to explain the technical intricacies of this bandwidth shortage you mean to imply, but not imply at the same time.

That is exactly what your position is.

If you don't understand that bandwidth is a resource, and that in order to add bandwidth, you have to maybe upgrade a pipe and definitely spend money.....then I can't help you. Bandwidth is not infinite, and there is a cost to adding it. Wouldn't that cost be better suited to upgrading the infrastructure?

My point is this....and its a simple one so please take the time to read this.

ISPs should be looking for ways to improve their infrastructure to make the traffic more efficient. The cable nodes where you have bandwidth feeding 400 homes and some feeding 10 homes should be optimized so that bandwidth can go across nodes somehow. D3 upgrades are still going on today, and they should have been done a long time ago. Especially at the profits these guys are bringing in.

It should be less about just blindly adding bandwidth and speed and more about optimizing what they have to make the network more efficient.

You seem to be caught up on the fact that I said bandwidth is a finite resource, but it is. You may not believe that, but its true. Even if there was a pool of bandwidth out there that is unlimited, the cable and dsl providers don't have the infrastructure to take advantage of it. Doesn't it make sense to look at that troubled infrastructure first?--My domain - Nightfall.net

Congestion issues are about concurrency - the number of people clogging up the pipes at any given time. The utility companies try to promote non-peak-time energy usage to combat the same problem. But it's hard to see that approach working with the Internet. I can save my laundry load for the late night, but I'm not going to hold off working online or watching Netfllix until off-peak hours. Caps are crude, but better than nothing as far as carriers are concerned.

Netflix could help that by allowing "download now watch later" options. Then one could download at 2 AM and watch the next day.

But MONTHLY caps do NOTHING to prevent DAILY congestion. If 6 PM-11 PM is when there is congestion then that's when you cap.

If I max out my 30 Mbps connection between 1 AM and 6 AM every day I'd be downloading 2 TB a month but I'm not causing congestion.

If I stay within my 250 GB cap but I only use my connection between 8-10 PM I am certainly more likely to be causing congestion issues even though I'm downloading 1/8 as much.

Re: Concurrency

I respect what you are saying and I think that might be a good idea to "help" but the real question is; "Should Netflix even have to help?" Did Netflix not pay their bill? Are they using more bandwidth than was allotted in their contract with the Tier 3 ISP?

The Netflix argument is another farce. If they are the cause of the congestion (which reports do show that Netflix does in fact use a lot of the available bandwidth) then the Tier 3 ISP's are doing a really bad job of negotiating contracts and again that is not Netflix fault.

Us users pay for our connections to the net as well. There is more than enough $$$$ for both sides to upgrade the networks.

What is really in the way is corporate excessive profit and shareholder desires. They are counter-intuitive to providing a "consumer service."

Re: Concurrency

I respect what you are saying and I think that might be a good idea to "help" but the real question is; "Should Netflix even have to help?" Did Netflix not pay their bill? Are they using more bandwidth than was allotted in their contract with the Tier 3 ISP?

It's not about helping. It about good business. I have a friend, no internet because he lives 2 miles outside city limits. Has a laptop. Well if Netflix had "download now watch later" he could come to my house and download a movie and watch it at home later. As it is with no internet Netflix isn't worth $8 a month since he can never use it. So that's money lost to Netflix. Multiply that by MILLIONS.

Another friend has DSL but is only 768 kbps max. Pretty shitty for Netflix. Well with "download now watch later" he can set his queue to download while he is sleeping or at work then have the movies ready when he wants to watch them. Once again another lost potential customer for Netflix.

Re: Concurrency

Vongo used to let you do that... which Netflix essentially replaced, and had some further contracts for content, but when their streaming first started, was much of the same content (Starz).Not sure why this didn't hold over - perhaps perceived complication, perhaps licensing, perhaps both.

That's a different circumstance and I agree that Netflix should have a "download now" option for that particular circumstance. I just dont think it should be applied just as a way to de-congest the internet. Internet congestion is mostly due to inadequate spending and inadequate maintenance of the internet.

Nice try, my problem is you implied that ISP's are short on Bandwidth, which they certainly are not.

BTW, anything can be considered scarce. Its all relative.

I'll state it again: The majority of "scarcity" on networks is self inflicted through bad network management and absolutely pitiful amounts of corporate greed. The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand.

Re: Concurrency

Nice try, my problem is you implied that ISP's are short on Bandwidth, which they certainly are not.

BTW, anything can be considered scarce. Its all relative.

I'll state it again: The majority of "scarcity" on networks is self inflicted through bad network management and absolutely pitiful amounts of corporate greed. The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand.

In that case, we are both correct. ISPs don't have an unlimited amount of bandwidth = True. ISPs networks are badly managed = True.